11.  On 8 January 1996 the first applicant filed an action claiming that she should be granted the right to educate her granddaughter of whom the second applicant is the father.
12.  The girl, who had been born to the first applicant's daughter, was then fourteen years old. The marriage of the second applicant and the first applicant's daughter had been terminated by a decision which had become final on 18 July 1985. The decision granted the custody of the child to the mother. In 1993 the mother married abroad and established her and her daughter's permanent residence there. At the time when the first applicant brought her action, the child and the mother were on a temporary stay in Slovakia.
13.  In her action of 8 January 1996 the first applicant relied on Section 45 of the Family Act and explained that her daughter had failed to take proper care of the girl. She further submitted that the second applicant was in agreement with her proposal. She also claimed that the parents be ordered to contribute to the child's maintenance.
14.  In January and February 1996 the Dunajská Streda District Court took several procedural steps. On 14 February 1996 the District Court appointed the Veľký Meder District Office to represent the interests of the child in the context of the proceedings. On 19 February 1996 the child's mother appealed against this decision. She claimed that the child's father was in arrears with payment of maintenance and that the officials of the District Office had failed to take appropriate action in that respect.
15.  The District Court had also before it a request for adoption of the child lodged by the husband of the child's mother. The request was later withdrawn and the proceedings discontinued.
16.  A hearing scheduled for 28 February 1996 had to be adjourned as the child's mother was ill.
17.  The court heard the parties on 15 April 1996. On that date the second applicant joined the proceedings and claimed that the first applicant's action be granted.
18.  In April and May 1996 the child's mother sought to disqualify the judge dealing with the case as well as the entire bench of the District Court. For this reason the hearing scheduled for 13 May 1996 was adjourned. The case file was submitted to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the request for disqualification of the judges.
19.  Subsequently the girl was placed in a psychiatric hospital.
20.  On 31 May 1996 the District Office in Veľký Meder issued an interim measure ordering that the child was to be temporarily placed in the first applicant's care. Reference was made to the conclusions of a psychiatrist who treated the child. The decision stated that the child's mother had married abroad in 1993 and that since then the relations between the child and the mother had deteriorated. According to the decision, the girl had expressed the wish to live with her grandparents.
21.  The child's mother refused to comply with the order. Upon the child's release from the psychiatric hospital the mother and the girl went abroad to where their place of permanent residence was.
22.  On 4 July 1996 the Dunajská Streda District Prosecutor joined the proceedings.
23.  On 11 July 1996 the Regional Court sent the file back to the District Court and instructed it to invite the child's mother to specify her objection to the District Court judges. Subsequently the police informed the District Court that the child and her mother had left Slovakia in June 1996.
24.  On 26 August 1996 the first applicant requested the District Court to issue an interim measure granting her the custody of the child pending the outcome of the proceedings.
25.  The case file was again sent to the Regional Court in September 1996. On 18 October 1996 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court after having decided that the latter's judges were not biased.
26.  A hearing before the District Court was held on 28 November 1996. Following their arrival for another temporary stay in Slovakia, the District Court heard the mother and her husband on 5 December 1996. It also heard the girl on 10 December 1996.
27.  On 18 December 1996 the case was adjourned and on 19 December 1996 the District Court dismissed the first applicant's request for an interim measure to be issued. The decision stated that at that time the mother and the child lived in Slovakia. The court noted that the girl had stated before it, on 10 December 1996, that she wished to stay with her mother.
28.  On 16 January 1997 the court heard witnesses.
29.  On 30 January 1997 the court appointed an expert with a view to obtaining an opinion on the child.
30.  On 13 February 1997 the expert informed the District Court that she was not in a position to submit an opinion because of a heavy workload.
31.  The second applicant requested that his daughter be prevented from travelling abroad without his consent. On 21 February 1997 the District Court dismissed the request.
32.  Hearings were scheduled for 18 February 1997 and 6 March 1997. On the latter date the District Court heard the parties. The case was adjourned as the court considered it necessary to obtain an expert opinion.
33.  On 7 March 1997 the child's mother filed an appeal “against all decisions” delivered by the judge dealing with the case.
34.  On 10 March 1997 the second applicant appealed against the District Court's decision of 21 February 1997. He also claimed that his right to meet his daughter should be determined by the court.
35.  On 20 March 1997 the mother of the child requested that further documentary evidence be taken.
36.  On 1 April 1997 the case was assigned to a different judge.
37.  On the same day the second applicant's daughter informed the court in writing that she did not wish to meet her father and that she lived abroad where she was undergoing treatment.
38.  On 13 May 1997 the District Court submitted the case file to the Trnava Regional Court for a decision on the appeals filed by the parties. On 23 June 1997 the Regional Court returned the file to the District Court and asked the latter to ensure that formal shortcomings in the mother's appeal of 7 March 1997 be eliminated. It further dismissed the child's appeal against the decision on appointment of an expert and quashed the above District Court's decision of 21 February 1997.
39.  On 4 July and on 5 August 1997 the judge asked the mother of the child to eliminate shortcomings in her submissions.
40.  On 15 September 1997 the grandfather of the child informed the court that his daughter and granddaughter were staying abroad.
41.  On 24 October 1997 the second applicant informed the court that his former wife had left Slovakia, together with their daughter, on 6 May 1997.
42.  In November 1997 and in January 1998 the court attempted to establish the address of the child and her mother. The information was submitted to it by the police on 29 January 1998.
43.  On 24 February 1998 the District Court issued an interim measure in which, inter alia, it prohibited the mother and the child from travelling abroad. At that time both the mother and the child were abroad. On 25 March 1998 the husband of the child's mother appealed against this decision. The applicants and the child's mother also appealed.
44.  On 14 April 1998 the case file was submitted to the President of the Trnava Regional Court. He returned the file to the District Court on 7 May 1998.
45.  On 8 July 1998, after having taken several procedural steps, the District Court re-submitted the file to the Regional Court for a decision on the appeals against the decision of 24 February 1998.
46.  On 26 August 1998 the Trnava Regional Court quashed the District Court's decision to the extent that it prohibited the mother and the child from travelling abroad. The case file was returned to the District Court on 4 September 1998. On 11 November 1998 and on 10 March 1999 the judge arranged for the Regional Court's decision to be served on the parties.
47.  On 28 October 1998 the child's mother requested that further evidence be taken. On 10 December 1998 she informed the District Court that she had withdrawn the authority of her husband to represent her in the proceedings.
48.  The District Court judge dealing with the case was ill for considerable periods of time between August 1998 and January 1999 and also between March and May 1999.
49.  On 21 April 1999 the Constitutional Court found that the first applicant's constitutional right to a hearing without undue delays had been violated. In its decision the Constitutional Court admitted that the length of the proceedings was due, to a certain extent, to the behaviour of the child's mother and her husband. However, the case was not particularly complex and what was at stake in the proceedings called for particular diligence. The Constitutional Court further noted that the District Court had caused undue delays in the proceedings in that, by failing to issue in time an interim measure restricting the mother's and the child's right to travel abroad, it had brought about the need to ask foreign authorities for assistance. Furthermore, by the time the Constitutional Court decided on the case, the District Court judge had not yet arranged for such a request to be sent to the authorities concerned.
50.  The Constitutional Court's decision stated that the District Court had not proceeded with the case efficiently in that it had failed to take evidence, including an expert opinion, required for a decision on the case. Delays in the proceedings had also arisen as a result of the ordinary courts' failure to decide on the requests for an interim measure to be issued within the statutory time-limit. Finally, the Constitutional Court noted that the District Court had failed to take any effective action in the case since 4 September 1998.
51.  On 3 September 1999 the District Court judge prepared a request for assistance which was to be submitted to foreign authorities through the Ministry of Justice.
52.  By two decisions delivered on 21 January 2000 the Dunajská Streda District Court discontinued both the proceedings on the first applicant's claim of 8 January 1996 and on the second applicant's claim of 10 March 1997. The decisions stated that the second applicant's daughter had reached her majority at the end of 1999.